Member Info for Shedulike

Well we agree on something then, I think it's pretty obvious that LR carries the bulk of the work. I've always wondered if EK comes anywhere near paying his way but I see that the UK Corporate Governance Code recommends at least two NED's for small PLC's so I assume it's unavoidable unless we went private. Certainly updates on multiple fronts well overdue, I agree with Bricks that it makes no sense that we haven't heard about the metallurgy - the last metallurgical samples were recovered last April ffs!

Economy class Mm's??? Too generous - given the corporate performance I'm hoping he managed to fly in and out as a stowaway.

You honestly think the work not undertaken by outsourcing to contractors could be done by one individual and a PA? Don't get me wrong I think as far as the Board goes MC, EK and DS get extremely good deals for the time I suspect goes in. Just from comms about what is going on generally (non price sens etc....) I have more evidence that LR is grafting but obviously that's anecdotal and I can't prove it. As for the boots on the ground I think the core team number about 10 and Jesús is contracted as and when needed, there will obviously be quiet periods but certainly when the drilling starts it will be all hands to the pump processing and logging cores for instance. In an ideal world from a purely business point of view these staff numbers would seamlessly expand and contract to meet EUZ's demands but you can't retain good people on this basis so sure we won't be wringing every last drop of value out of them all the time, for all I know they're not all FT anyway. Whether 10 people in Spain is a luxury I can't be absolutely certain - for instance could Elena & Emma's roles be combined (not picking on them because they're female it's just perhaps the most obvious case looking at Proy 'Who Are We') but I can't see a motive for LR to over staff the Spanish Op. Basically I think the suggestion that one individual and a PA could do everything is a long way off credible.

Well as it happens I didn't, I simply rebutted your comment that they have "Nothing to do" which is obviously incorrect, and I note has since become "They have very little to do". Perhaps you think they just ring up SPI and ask them to drill some holes of their choosing in the rough vicinity of Toral?

Bombshell! LR doesn't turn the drill bit by hand, we never knew :)

Bricks the PFS has not been abandoned. I would suggest folk refer to CJ's notes from the AGM where they clarify that we are not funded to complete the full PFS but aim to progress enough workflows to satisfy a partner who can fund it. The work we are undertaking will still be central to a completed PFS, whether that will be done by EUZ, EUZ+partner, or someone who completely takes it off our hands is open to debate.

"The problem here it seems to me is the Company has nothing to do", okay I know morale is low here but let's keep it a bit more real. From 13th Dec:
"Our work relating to hydrogeology and the local environment is ongoing, but this study supports our decision to press ahead with the planned 2022 drilling campaign. This campaign will commence in the New Year and involve both resource drilling and a series of shallow geotechnical drilling". Doesn't sound like Toral is being 'put on ice' to me.
Yes not being funded for a PFS after another raise is a massive disappointment and of great concern to me given that IMO we need it to get fair value for Toral. There will surely be an update soon and while I'm not overly confident of an instant turnaround exaggerating the situation is not going to help any investors old or new.

Geowiz wasn't that mainly because they were quoting 'barrels per day' in the initial flows of 16az, which later turned out to include drilling fluids. At least this time they have learnt from the mistakes and we can be certain that it's 241 bopd, at least initially.

JoMac - I would start with the latest presentation on our website even though it hasn't been updated in a while. Bear in mind there is approx 50% more resource in the indicated category (5.9Mt) since then and the hydrology is also more advanced and de-risked. Latest metallurgy and ore sorting analysis due, news on a drill campaign likely targeting the high grade area also imminent and hopefully some clarification on a much needed new corporate strategy. Here's the link:
http://www.europametals.com/site/PDF/3714e911-a7fd-4328-96f9-ca84ce5a0340/EuropeMetalsProjectToralQ221

Newbie, all my best wishes for your Grandson's recovery.

Summit, I wouldn't want to be in Biden's corner during that match up :) On a serious note I can't believe some posters are dismissing the heightened investment risks created by these tensions. We all have to accept that there is a worst case scenario that I won't spell out for fear of vexing folk unnecessarily, we all know what that means and have to stare it in the face before deciding what to do. Given the potential upside I have decided not to de-risk my holding, that could yet prove reckless but we haven't seen the institutions taking flight so I'm fairly confident that Russia won't want any self inflicted financial ruin. More importantly let's hope and pray that these talks are constructive and needless loss of life is avoided.

Given the fate of other Russian stocks today the SP resilience here has been remarkable.

Thanks CHRI5P and tsbs, that's good to know. I would add that I don't for one minute believe the fact that these investments are high risk excuses MC & LR's underperformance on the corporate front but we all know what's happened, where we currently sit and no amount of hand wringing will change that. While we shouldn't brush these mistakes under the carpet they've been put to the Board thanks to CJ and we've heard what they had to say, I think if you're sticking around it's time to see what the new investors can bring and certainly I would suggest that this relentless moanathon is getting us nowhere. Nothing wrong with a bit of a cathartic release of frustration of course but I don't see the point of going over it day after day. Having said that I have absolutely no expectancy that it will reduce so I'll be elsewhere until there is something new to talk about, I'm hoping that something corporate will come before the drill strategy as it's the weaknesses I want to see addressed before the fieldwork. Back soon I hope.

Just a quick word to the board generally, I see I was accused yesterday of being lead up the garden path by this company. I don't really care about that, particularly because of where the remark came from but I do take offence at the suggestion that I'm trying to "Take others with me". I have always talked about the risks here, you only have to look back to Sun 21:45 to see that while I still believe there is cause for optimism I also think that with this sort of high risk investment there is an ever present danger of losing everything. I can't be more frank than that so the suggestion that I'm trying to deceive anyone on this board is not only pathetically inaccurate but also an insult to everyone's intelligence.

Sorry CHRI5P - I missed that while posting my rebuttal to HS/BB saying that the board is relying on II's knowing something we don't. Blimey I'm trying to keep the board more harmonious but what a load of b*ll*cks! Yep timing is everything and as has been well discussed over the years LTH's have got it wrong. I'm magnanimous enough to admit that when I first came in it was pre SS and we had very little cash, looking back it was inevitable there would be multiple equity raises but to be fair it would have been reasonable not to expect them at such pernicious levels. I can also see a route to a positive outcome with EUZ and Toral though I'm also aware of the risk of losing the lot, that's how it is with tiny exploration plays, the majority fail. You're right to cite the example of EUA, while we still don't know exactly what the future holds but a once unloved afterthought on AIM is now one of the most talked about and whatever happens has already a transformed mcap. Back to EUZ I often suspect the positive posters and doomsayers on here are probably much more closely aligned in sentiment than it appears. Put it is this way, I believe there is a reasonable chance of a good conclusion to the project but accept there is a chance of losing my entire investment, the prophets of doom predict disaster and yet leave the remains of their capital in and tell us about top ups, where does the madness lie? When I read the explanation that someone's so far down that they may as well just leave the remnants in I know they must have some expectation that the enterprise can still deliver, why? Well at what point would you not bend down to pick up a unit of currency from the pavement putting aside superstition over a penny. I reckon most posters would make the effort to pick up a pound coin off the ground so why not rescue thousands or even hundreds if you think it's a dead duck? Where does the madness lie?

You didn't read what I said did you, as I explained DB's support in the last placing is encouraging for me but it is far from being the only reason I remain net positive, it is not the only piece of evidence I am relying on, there is a bundle of work completed, rubber stamped and public that is giving me cause for hope that this can still deliver. I can't put this more simply so can you understand that I am not relying on institutions knowing something that I don't. You are just completely wrong to make that assertion. Furthermore you have said that DB invested again as a "Damage limitation" exercise, I think it is extremely improbable that DB's analysts would apply this logic when making investment decisions. Okay I wasn't there when they decided to buy more at 5p you'll be surprised to hear :) but in a wealth protecting investment institution with formal risk assessments passed upwards I think it's impossible to believe they would allocate more funds on this basis. Damage limitation for an outfit like this would be to recover their remaining funds not increase their position. It appears to me that you think DB have acted in a manner akin to your sentiment, leaving capital at risk and increasing in an investment in which they have little confidence. It is logical to assume that if DB shared your bearish sentiment they would not be risking more capital, but they have, ironically just as you have.

"The forum here has returned to relying on institutions knowing something we dont". That's not correct, I think the institutional backing (albeit at a poor level) is a reason for encouragement but much of what I've written about recently is based on what we do know, lot's of positive independent reports to digest. Certainly we could do with some clarity on the 2022 strategy. My optimism has been moderated by events but it is absolutely not just based on "why else would they have invested" so please less of the hyperbole.

To be fair TW has had some victories (Globo springs to mind) so personally I think it is unwise to dismiss the ultra bearish view out of hand. However weighing up all the evidence it does look his opinion of EUA is based on bitterness, he took a stance lost out badly apparently and as EUA has delivered successful raises, in-country agreements and now rolling out JORC's plus a fascinating forward looking strategy he has refused to budge. His position just looks like stubborn intransigence to me and the most recent Twitter comment plain silly.

Sure Bricks an underground mine but the good news is that the 2021 drilling proved we will be into economic resource pretty much from the entry ramp. That's why it's a bit annoying that the presentation still shows the break even point as calculated in the PEA. Perhaps it would need a new independent study to change it so maybe that won't come until a PFS? Also the ore sorting analysis should further improve the early years production profile but we've heard nothing about that as you pointed out even though the latest met samples were procured over six months ago. Still I suppose it's a small positive that the JORC results from the upper siliceous zone weren't known when we were negotiating last spring/summer, assuming that's backed up by good metallurgy and ore sorting the payback has to be cut from the current 4 years, though I have no idea if that can be independently rubber stamped in the near term.

Ha ha yes how odd. I don't believe a potential buyer / partner would be unable to evaluate the value of Toral without a PFS. Haven't GGP signed a JV agreement for funding before completing a PFS, in fact (I think) partly for the purpose of completing a PFS? EUA had a development contract with a partner years ago which they haven't as yet used prior to a PFS on their assets at the time. The problem is that without a doubt the PFS would have been another huge step in de-risking and if we could have achieved it independently we would have been a much stronger position to sell or JV. As things stand we can't fund it without help so unless some funding comes by way of a grant application it looks likely that we're going to have to relinquish a chunk of Toral from a weak bargaining position. That reminds me I meant to ask CJ to add EU grants to his questions, I'd like to know if we can assume that further to the CDTI arrangement have all other public sector funding applications been unsuccessful or are there ongoing live applications still emitting a faint ray of hope? If not it should be removed from the latest presentation.